Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935052

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-238139

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 2

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XI Seiten, Seiten 570-1100

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part IV. The federations and the union // Chapter II. The commonwealth of Australia

Collection:: Economics Books

suap. 111] THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA 981 appeal lies by special leave in every case save as regards criminal appeals, where the prerogative has been limited by a Canadian Act, though it is a good deal more than possible that that Act might be held to be inconsistent with the [Imperial Act 7 & 8 Vict. c. 69, s. 1,1 and therefore ultra vires the Canadian Parliament. In the case of the Commonwealth appeals lie by right and by special leave from all the State Supreme Courts and by special leave from inferior Courts ; from the Commonwealth High Courts appeals lie only by special leave, and in certain instances all appeals are pro- hibited save by the permission of the Court itself, viz. in cases involving the question of the rights inter se of the Commonwealth and the states or any two or more states. But even in cases of this sort an appeal could be brought by special leave from an inferior Court exercising federal jurisdiction except in the case of the Supreme Courts of the states, which are not allowed by the Commonwealth Act No. 8 of 1907 to deal with such cases at all. In the case of the Union the right to grant special leave to appeal from any Court whatever in South Africa is apparently intended to be abolished, save as regards the appellate division of the Supreme Court, though the case of the inferior Courts which are not divisions of the Supreme Court seems to be overlooked. This rule will clearly reduce to the minimum appeals from South Africa, as the only cases which can come to it are those which have run through the Appellate Court. This proposal has no doubt advan- tages, inasmuch as any case which came to the Privy Council will have been reconsidered by the most authoritative opinion of South Africa, and any possibility of error based ' That section is devoted to allowing appeals whether of right or by special leave from any Court even if not a Court of Appeal, but it also gives the power in the case of Courts of Appeal. But it has not been acted on in criminal cases in Canada since the Act of 1888 (51 Viet. c. 43, s. 5, now Rev. Stat., 1906, c. 146, s. 1025) of Canada. So it has been held by the Supreme Court of Victoria that the attempted limitation of appeals as of right under s. 231 of Act No. 1142 is ultra vires as repugnant to the terms of the Order in Council of June 9, 1860, which fixes the amount at £500, whereas the Act says £1,000. See Staiutes, 1890, iv. 3232, n.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 2)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation